Re-(Self) Nomination. A thorough article on the company best known for having created WinFax. Has already gone through a peer review and a previous FAC round. I believe I have taken care of all the outstanding issues with this one: have done a thorough copyedit, re-worded the intro paragraph and added points they may have required further clarification. Have also dug into the corporate reports for the firm (thanks to the local reference library!) and managed to fill in some remaining "holes" information-wise that I found. Found further info on the Berkley Systems Inc. v. Delrina case, which was about the only contentious item I could find _that was documented_ relating to the history of the company or its products. Captmondo 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, though the red links found near the end are annoying. «LordViD» 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just fyi, have plugged some the link "holes". Just as a matter of interest, is there a guideline on how many links should be "fixed"? For example, I am not an expert on cc:Mail, but I can see the need for an article on it by somebody, if not me. Does that mean that I am obliged to "fill it", as I would rather just point it out that it should a) exist and b) be filled by someone who does know more about the subject than myself. It makes most sense in this instance for me to fill in links to Delrina-related personalities and products, but I was leery about straying too far from known territory. Would like to hear back from anyone on this point, as it relates how to much or how little I felt obliged to create Wikilinks in an article. Captmondo 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links can't be used as an objection, as they don't affect an article's content. However, they are a bit annoying. My advice is to leave them red if you aren't familiar with them, so if and when this makes the main page, someone with the knowledge and interest can create them. It's really up to you, though. Just do what you want with them if/when you feel like it. The Catfish 00:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very comprehensive, detailed and well written. The lead is impressive, and the article discusses a very difficult topic but covers it very well with pictures and lots of references. — Wackymacs 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My only real regret is that there's so much to say about the company's earlier history that the juicy meat of the article - the flying toaster case - ends up so far down. I wonder if splitting the intro into two paragraphs would help draw attention to this? And what about an internal link from the intro to that section - I'm sure we had something similar on a recent frontpage article (the New Zealand architect whose lunatic asylum fell down). — Haeleth Talk 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
**Not sure I would want to do that in this case. Over time I think Berkely Systems v. Delrina should quite possibly become its own article, but in the meantime I think that what is currently there covers things off nicely for someone who is just casually interested in the case. That is of course IMHO. ;-) And in the end it is not the central focus of the Delrina article, just a particularly interesting facet of the company's history/legacy. Captmondo 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Skip last comment. I see what you have done (and what you meant) and I approve, for what it is worth. Captmondo 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - and thanks for helping me catch all of the Berkley/Berkeley typos :) --JohnDBuell 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great content, good references and well-designed footnotes. Good use of illustration. Article interesting even to people not very interested in software considering its review of the legal case with Berkeley Systems. - JustinWick 01:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A consistent referencing sytem is not used throughout the article, there are inline cites without corresponding numbered notes and there are some html linked refs in text that do not use the footnoting system and are not fully cited in the references for future tracability. See Hugo Chávez for a method to link multiple inlines to one ref if you need to.
- The section Acquisition by Symantec and aftermath is poorly written in comparison to the rest of the article, megere bitsy paragrahs into longer ones where necessary.--nixie 02:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- re referencing and See Hugo Chávez for a method to link multiple inlines I'm holding off on my new read and "vote" until some of the changes arising from this FAC are complete. But I want to comment here that the issue of referencing for a comprehensive corporate profile should be more thoroughly addressed. Although the Hugo Chavez article was only referenced for an example of linking multiple inlines, since it was mentioned, the fact that it contains barely readable paragraphs due to the sheer abundance of citation links should also be noted. These further have the tendency to be broken by future edits, decreasing usability, and require an extra order of Wikipedia-literacy to use and maintain. IMHO, in general, objections based on detailed recommendations for referencing and citation style should be based on specifics of the article and article category. For example:
- Is the References section complete? Does it contain well-documented sources that would seem to allow verifiability of the general contents of the article, and the general subject area?
- What specifically requires "pinpoint citation"? What are the controversial statements and explanations of arcane topics that are not specifically cited?
- I believe this is all entirely consistent with both WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE and related, and with practical reality. Hope that helps the processs... --Tsavage 20:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found the reference in the Hugo Chávez article you are talking about, and will look into converting everything to the format you suggest. This may take a little while, but will let you know when this is done. Will also look into expanding the "poorly written" Aftermath section, though I tend to disagree with the argument that short paragraphs are necessarily bad paragraphs. Captmondo 14:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have fixed the footnote/referencing problems pointed out, and have also re-organized/added to the Aftermath section. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This is a comprehensive and well designed and composed article. It's got items of interest for those interested in the industry of which this company was a part, with insights for those who might not know the milieu as intimately. VickiZ 15:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2005 (UTC)
- Have fixed the footnote numbering/inline links problem, which I believe was the underlying issue. Have also re-jigged the organization and wording of the offending one-line paragraphs that had appeared near the end of the article. I won't dispute not keeping to the house style, but I would argue for flexibility on this point if not overused, and if used as intended, as emphasis. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object: The article is complete and for someone like me who doesn't really understand software, it's terminology and various systems, it is quite easy to comprehend. What lets it down is the erratic placement of the images. (I assume someone more knowledgable than me has checked the legacity of so many images in copyright in one single article?) They seem to have just been plonked in regardless of section or appearance to the article as a whole. The footnotes system seems to be as erratic as the images - I know they can be a pain to organize but the cause of the problem is (I think) in line references causing the footnotes to be confused. Inline references are useless and need to be placed at the bottom of the page with the other references, one can footnote to them if they are of vital importance to a certain section of text. Inline reference is no use to anyone printing the article anyway so put them down below where they belong. My points are all things which can easily be fixed, I look forward to changing my vote. Giano | talk 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Am planning on concentrating on the footnoting issue possibly tonight -- and you have pointed me in the right direction as to what the underlying issue is, so thank you! I am confused about the comment about the images appearing willy-nilly though. I thought it was quite orderly, with a forms screenshot adjacent to the Forms section, a WinFax screenshot adjacent to the WinFax section, a Box Shot of CommSuite against the communication software section. The three images used for the multimedia section are: product box shot, followed by illustrative album cover, then a screenshot of a further multimedia product, all of which (I believe) are fully explained both in the captions and in the body of the text. If you just don't like the arrangement of those three images, I can remove two of them, but I think the article will suffer for it. Captmondo 20:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*You don't need to remove any images so long as they are all legit. I'm not obsessive (like some) about images all being on the right hand side of the page, or even the same side but it would be beneficial to the article if they were at least in one section or another noy inbetween. To my eye it would be better if they were dispersed evenly throughout the article. I don't like that big template much in the lead, but I suppose it's OK an article on this subject matter. Giano | talk 23:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've come up with a different way of ordering the image, which I think is the best of both worlds. And the footnoting issue has I believe been resolved. Captmondo 03:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: OK that's a lot better. I see the images are still breaking the line separating various sections. To my eyes it would better still if you could fix that, but if that's allowed within the style guidelines then so be it. I'll support the article now as it is very good. Giano | talk 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent job well done. This article is amazing, especially for such a simple topic. Long live Canadians! —Hollow Wilerding 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns above were addressed, thanks! I still Object (apologies for not noting this before): The "Trivia" section with just one item should be merged into an appropriate section elsewhere. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Issue fixed, thanks, Objection struck; no time right now to review further. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! This has been merged with the "Aftermath" section. I did have this in the trivia section as this is not a fact that I can easily back up with a reference, and thought it more appropriate to throw it in the trivia section as a result. I was there and remember it happening that way, but I doubt there are is documentary evidence I can show for this. If there is a further contention on this paragraph, I think I would just delete it, as it should not "drag down" the quality of the rest of the article. Cheers! Captmondo 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't find a verifiable reference for it, then you need to delete it. WP:NOR and all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the footnotes. Two more things, are the links in the external links section, links that people might be interested in or were they used a refs- external links used to write the article should probably be put in the references section so it is clear that why were consulted to write the article. Secondly could the trivia section be merged into the article, I guess it would probably go into the Acquisition by Symantec and aftermath section.--nixie 04:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your first point, and have moved all of the links that I used for research purposes into the References section, and left the rest that did not add any further info (but may still be of interest) in the External Links section. As for point two, I have removed that paragraph altogether (after having first merged it as you suggested), as Bunchofgrapes pointed out that it goes against WP:NOR. Captmondo 10:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support Ok Captmondo, this is well written article. however, i think we should wait a couple of days until it's featured. today is the day wikipedia featured it's dullest, most frivilous article. though Captmondo's article is by no means dull, the subject matter is a little dry. something like the Spawn Man's Dinosaur article is the perfect antidote to the tedium of shoe polish. then after a couple of days we could feature this article? Veej 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between Featured Articles and Today's Featured Article, the one shown on the main page. It usually takes a few weeks for a FA to get onto the front page after promotion; there's no set schedule. And I take exception to your categorization of Shoe Polish. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously doubt that you have made a convincing case for a valid objection, but will accept your support, conditional though it may be. One person's tedium is another's treasure. As for scheduling as a Feature Article on the front page, there is a process in place for that, and you can see what is currently slated for the "front page" in upcoming days for December. Having said that, I am guessing that it will take another week or so for the Delrina article to (hopefully) pass full muster as a Featured article candidate, and probably will not appear on the front page until January at the earliest. Captmondo 14:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article is easy to read, the summary stands up on its own, the article proper maintains a consistent level of detail and covers the subject thoroughly to a depth that seems appropriate for a software company profile, and Delrina in particular. I did make a couple of what I consider minor changes to the summary, mainly, repositioning the paragraph break to a more logical spot, and adding a mention of "flying toasters" (which I believe is, along with WinFax, one of the two details likely to come to most people's minds). That said, my support is based on the article as it stands. I did take the time to more thoroughly go through the references than I might have for previous FACs, with the question: Could I reconstruct this article from "common knowlege" plus the cited sources. I believe could; in any case, I don't have a problem with verifiabilty, from what's presented. The writing style could be slightly more...peppy, but as is, it is just fine, and neither sounds overly clinical and press release-like, nor over editorialized in a chatty attempt to capture interest. I also read a couple of other computer software-related FAs. All in all, seems to meet FA criteria to at least the best of current standards. --Tsavage 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]